Ecb Project Case Study

ECB PROJECT CASE STUDY NGOs traditionally compete for funds; what happens when they join forces to raise money together? Catherine Gould and Katy Love September 2011 1 The big NGOs traditionally compete for funds; what happens when they join forces to raise money together? 1. Six NGOs began with $5 million in the bank; and $7 million still to find… CARE International, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Mercy Corps, Oxfam, Save the Children, and World Vision International have come together in a unique collaboration to build field, agency, and sector level emergency preparedness and response capacity. The Emergency Capacity Building (ECB) Project aims to improve the speed, quality, and effectiveness of the humanitarian community in saving lives, improving welfare, and protecting the rights of people in emergency situations. In 2008, following a first phase of the ECB Project, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation accepted a proposal from the six NGOs worth $12.3 million for a further five‐year joint programme. Stepping outside their traditional grantmaking strategy to support this innovative project, the Gates Foundation provided $5 million of core funding and the agencies pledged to fundraise together the remaining $7.3 million. While CARE USA manages the contract with the Gates Foundation, the other five agencies signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlining the project’s management structure and ways of working for the five‐year joint venture. This case study recounts the agencies’ attempts to together close the $7.3 million funding gap, while launching and sustaining a $12 million programme. Three years in, the ECB Project is almost fully funded, but it has not always been a smooth journey… 2. Priorities set, a fundraising team established, but in a changing landscape Where and how did the NGOs start in the $7.3 million task? As outlined in the MOU, an inter‐agency Fundraising Committee was established in late 2008 with a face‐to‐face start‐up meeting. This group comprises of funding and/or programme representatives from each of the six NGOs with the clear remit to raise the remaining funding gap by building relationships and awareness with, and ultimately gaining financial support from, donors. Following a long debate it was decided the NGOs would not commit to certain funding targets per agency (due to their different sizes and fundraising potential), but rather to raise the shortfall as a group. In the five ECB country‐level consortia, the NGOs and their partners collaborated to develop annual joint capacity building plans; while at headquarters level the six NGOs established their global capacity‐ building priorities and targets. Senior programme staff from each of the NGOs then met to develop these into a series of concept notes for joint projects which, combined, would meet key field, agency and sectoral gaps in emergency capacity. These provided ‘a more concrete basis for fundraising’, according to the ECB Project mid‐term evaluation (September 2011). It was a promising start, with concept notes, plans and fundraisers in place, but the funding landscape was rapidly changing as the global financial crisis hit. And though the trend of institutional donors increasingly granting to consortia continues, the power of the ECB member agencies to raise significant sums of money was not immediately apparent. 2 3. Experimenting with joint fundraising models With the support of a central ECB coordination team, the six NGOs have been testing a number of fundraising models for their joint concepts and plans, with mixed success. What follows is a series of mini case studies of five of the approaches being used, why and what has happened so far. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ A. Fundraising by Committee – at headquarters level At the global level, the ECB coordination team convened the Fundraising Committee of the six agencies on a monthly basis. The goal was to begin efforts to close the funding gap. Early on, the Committee had hoped one or two foundations would provide the bulk of the money needed. However, the Fundraisers soon agreed that this was a strategy unlikely to be successful, especially as the global economy crashed in 2009. According to a CRS fundraiser, “the economic environment and timing couldn’t have been worse when ECB Phase II kicked off”. Instead, the Fundraisers have developed a matrix of funding options that range from private foundations to government donors and assigned which agency would be the lead on those conversations. The development of this shared matrix was quite exciting; as one CARE fundraiser put it “the matrix may be the best you'll get from six competing non‐profit organizations, because at the end of the day revenue streams are competitive”. There is a “significant level of transparency” though “agencies are somewhat uncomfortable sharing too much”, a World Vision staff member reflects. It was a big step forward for the group; agencies that traditionally competed for funds were now sharing intelligence about their donor relationships. They began to approach donors on behalf of the ECB Project, though not as a group of six as they had done with the Gates Foundation. However, the Fundraising Committee has suffered from inconsistent participation and a lack of leadership; “joint fundraising requires a lot of coordination” says one ECB team member. Additionally, the US donors are not particularly interested in emergency capacity building and “it has been tough to get traction” says a Save the Children fundraiser, as “we didn’t have buy in from donors other than the Gates Foundation”. According to a CRS fundraiser, “donors are simply more likely to respond to emergencies… Sometimes, in terms of funding, projects are before their time”. “The ECB Project was too expensive for what the market would bear, making the fundraisers’ task difficult” adds a World Vision programme staff member. And, given the challenging fundraising climate, the NGOs were in a difficult position and had to choose between prioritizing a joint agency project like ECB over their own agency priorities. A CARE fundraiser said that initially “there was a lot of good will. But that only goes so far in keeping people on task to achieve a goal.” In addition, the decentralized structure of NGOs such as World Vision makes fundraising for a project like ECB “very challenging, as it isn’t necessarily owned by any of the individual country offices and therefore doesn’t always get on the fundraising radar”. The NGOs began taking alternative approaches to relying exclusively on the Fundraising Committee… 3 B. Fundraising by Committee – at country level All five ECB country‐level consortia were receiving Gates Foundation funds from the global level annually, but instead of relying on those funds exclusively, the Bolivia consortium took matters into their own hands. Each member NGO committed to having someone on a fundraising group to share information and coordinate fundraising attempts to make up funding gaps for locally‐led activities. When DiPECHO announced a call for proposals in Bolivia, the fundraising group decided that joint proposals led by one or two agencies would provide more impact and be an efficient way to ensure the country is covered. The NGOs are able to submit jointly thanks to a high level of trust, according to a fundraiser from HelpAge in Bolivia. A fundraiser from Christian Aid in Bolivia agrees, commenting that “the opportunity to meet other fundraisers [from other NGOs] regularly enables the exchange of ideas and, with the passing of time, these exchanges are more open, thanks to the trust that is generated”. He continues: joint fundraising is seen as an opportunity to highlight the capacities of each agency and build on them. In fact, joint fundraising provides an opportunity “to work together on a larger scale”, with agencies beyond the original ECB member NGOs collaborating. In spite of their enthusiasm, however, a CARE Bolivia staff member notes the challenges in prioritizing joint proposals over their own agency fundraising efforts. In fact, these decisions are often made at the global level. In addition, consultation amongst agencies is cumbersome and time‐consuming. Given the challenges of widespread consultation required in joint fundraising, a CRS Bolivia staff emphasizes that the consortium must keep asking itself “when is it more effective to work together and when is it not?” An Oxfam Bolivia staff member believes that joint fundraising is the way of the future; consortium fundraising is preferred by many donors as a way to cut down on grant administration. He says, “donors have signaled that consortium proposals will be preferred, even if administrative costs for agencies are higher, because impact will be higher.” While continuing to be opportunistic, the Bolivia fundraising group is, at the time of publication, developing a joint fundraising strategy to enable joint programming between more than nine NGOs. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ C. Technical Advisers from different NGOs gathering around a joint priority Initially, some of the ECB global‐level technical working groups expected that the global Fundraising Committee would raise the funds for their joint concepts and plans. When funds weren’t forthcoming (see Case A), one working group, comprised of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Advisers from each NGO, began to fundraise directly themselves for a joint project to create a Practitioner’s Guide to DRR. CRS technical and project staff approached the Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) on behalf of the DRR Advisers group and developed a proposal at the end of 2010. When funding from OFDA wasn’t forthcoming, the DRR Advisers mobilized their own agency funds (CRS and Save the Children) to allow work on the Guide to start, while a fundraiser from Mercy Corps secured additional funds. CRS continued discussions with OFDA, and subsequently learned that they would provide the remaining funds to close the (now smaller) funding gap for the Guide.

Load more